Mental health and sexual and reproductive health services for girls, young women and gender-diverse youth with intersectional identities: protocol for a realist review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Variations in mental health and sexual and reproductive health (SRH) outcomes of girls/women (cisgender and transgender) and gender-diverse (nonbinary, Two-Spirit, gender fluid, agender, queer, gender neutral) youth with intersectional identities exist and have largely been ignored in the literature. There is a lack of information on how these health services meet the health needs of girls/women and gender-diverse youth with intersectional identities and the quality of such services. The objective of this global realist review is to identify how, why, for whom, in what contexts and to what extent mental health and SRH services meet the health needs of girls/women (cisgender and transgender) and gender-diverse youth (10-25 years) with intersectional identities. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The protocol has been registered with PROSPERO and will follow Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses Quality Standards for Realist Reviews. We will identify the programme theory and implementation determinants of mental health and SRH services for girls/women (cisgender and transgender) and gender-diverse (nonbinary, Two-Spirit, fluid, agender, queer, gender neutral) youth (10-25 years). The scope of the review will be defined in the first stage and will include consultations with youth Advisory Group members and initial programme theory development. An iterative search of scholarly bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, Web of Science, IBSS) in addition to a grey literature search will take place in the second stage. The third stage will include evidence extraction and synthesis. In the final stage, the narrative will be developed and refined in consultation with Youth Advisory Group members, and findings will be disseminated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Research Ethics Board at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (2023/153). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, youth-friendly materials and webinars and national and international conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024532422.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.133 | 0.162 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.094 | 0.021 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".